|
|
Post by moderator1 on Jan 16, 2015 15:00:21 GMT
Time for a poll of our members to give everyone a chance to express their own feelings as the debate rages on ESPN Cricinfo, in Twitter, in the stated intention of the presumed new Chairman of the ECB, Colin Graves, to "review everything" and not least in this forum. All the options offered have been taken from cricinfo's vox pop of County Chief Executives reported today www.espncricinfo.com/england/content/story/821157.html. Only the CEOs of Middlesex (no comment) and Yorkshire (not available) were excluded. Zac's own comment identifying Sussex's position is reproduced here: "We are making progress but need to better engage with the next generation of cricketers and fans game wide. We need to work on the image of the game, create heroes for the fans to identify with and follow. This should be centrally driven and supported by the counties." As several of the CEOs position statements contain multiple options so does our poll. You may choose as many of the statements to identify with as you feel are consistent. Finally you may choose "Another idea" and if you do so, please post to offer your own suggestions to share with the forum. The poll is open for one week from today, closing at 00.01 on Friday 23rd January. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2015 16:49:30 GMT
Couldn't resist casting a vote for "another idea" as it looked so sad sirtting there with nil points. I'll let you know when I've worked out what it is!!!  |
|
|
|
Post by moderator1 on Jan 19, 2015 8:56:34 GMT
With four days left to go this looks like being one of the best and most diverse polls on this forum. I have looked at a number of other cricket message boards and apart from the debate on Cricinfo last week none of them have shown the interest and commitment to debate of our members. Thanks to all those who have already contributed and looking forward to seeing more of you voting for any of the options in the next few days. A reminder too to borderman and one other member to please share with us that "Another idea" for which two votes have been cast - this kind of debate gains value from sharing creative thoughts as well as opinions.
|
|
|
|
Post by leedsgull on Jan 19, 2015 14:53:03 GMT
I find it staggering that 4 people,to date, have voted for a 25% reduction in Championship matches in favour of another meaningless 20/20 tournament.12 Championship matches means only 6 at home spread over a 6 month season.Do they understand what they are suggesting?
|
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Jan 19, 2015 15:42:16 GMT
I find it staggering that 4 people,to date, have voted for a 25% reduction in Championship matches in favour of another meaningless 20/20 tournament.12 Championship matches means only 6 at home spread over a 6 month season.Do they understand what they are suggesting? The poll doesn't specify a 25% reduction. Some may favour a reduction from 16 matches to 14. |
|
|
|
Post by leedsgull on Jan 19, 2015 16:50:46 GMT
Flashblade. The Moderator said the poll was based on the CEO's reponses. The Northants ex CEO was the one who stated his desire to reduce the Championship to 12 matches. Perhaps the Moderator could confirm this?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2015 18:08:41 GMT
I find it staggering that 4 people,to date, have voted for a 25% reduction in Championship matches in favour of another meaningless 20/20 tournament.12 Championship matches means only 6 at home spread over a 6 month season.Do they understand what they are suggesting? The poll doesn't specify a 25% reduction. Some may favour a reduction from 16 matches to 14. Exactly. 14 would be fine - seven home games split between five at Hove and one apiece at Arundel and Horsham. I love four day cricket and after years of attending every T20 match gave up in disgust when it went to Friday nights, which are ugly, unpleasant affairs with the Cromwell Rd end drunks with their beer glass 'snakes', who half way through the second innings moronically turn to you and ask "who are we playing?" (true story from my only Friday night attendance last season). But that said, I am more than happy to lose a four day game at Hove in early April. And with a couple of counties likely to go out of business within the next few years, we will be down to a 14 match championship, anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by moderator1 on Jan 19, 2015 18:43:22 GMT
Thanks flashblade, leedsgull and borderman for solving two problems. I hadn't meant to be too prescriptive;"reduce the number of championship matches" would have left things open, but I will now take your suggestion - that the listed option is exactly per David Smith and 12 championship games (whether split equally home and away is not quite clear)
- bordermans's "another idea" is his 14 game option as he has so so eloquently detailed it.
I now await the exposition of the other member voting for that option...
|
|
|
|
Post by moderator1 on Jan 22, 2015 8:33:03 GMT
We have just learnt that tomorrow's Argus will contain Zac Toumazi's views on franchise T20 cricket. Perfect symmetry then, that this is the last day of our polling and your votes are quite independent. For anyone who is interested in the way the game might develop, whether franchised, friday nights, August only, or any other element, please make your views known now. We will publish and analyse them tomorrow and see how close your thinking is to Zac's!
|
|
|
|
Post by jonfilby on Jan 22, 2015 21:39:54 GMT
Thanks flashblade, leedsgull and borderman for solving two problems. I hadn't meant to be too prescriptive;"reduce the number of championship matches" would have left things open, but I will now take your suggestion - that the listed option is exactly per David Smith and 12 championship games (whether split equally home and away is not quite clear) - bordermans's "another idea" is his 14 game option as he has so so eloquently detailed it. I now await the exposition of the other member voting for that option... It was me I think. My other idea is to stop playing 50 over cricket which, as John Arlott said of Bob Cunis, is neither one thing nor the other. |
|
|
|
Post by moderator1 on Jan 23, 2015 7:41:22 GMT
Thank you all for taking part. This is written before seeing Zac Toumazi's interview with Steve Hollis in the Argus and it will be interesting to see what are his own stated preferences.
Your preferences, from this small but balanced sample - roughly equal numbers of prolific posters, regular posters,occasional posters and those who have never posted - have come out for wanting to see some T20 on free to air tv, and for the two options restoring play to the high summer, perhaps as a single block or perhaps as a daytime slot to attract families. The "Friday night appointment to view" myth from the Populus survey is exploded with only 5 out of 63 votes for the status quo options.
The next most popular option is to move the 50 over contest back to the early months of the season,or as Jon Filby would prefer, back to yesterday. There is only limited support for a T20 franchise competition or for reducing the number of Championship games.
It is very clear that the users of this forum want to see change and will not be happy with the ECB continuing to drive us down a line of their own choosing. Other polls have shown that we represent a broad diversity of opinion amongst members and other supporters of cricket in Sussex. This is the feedback that we offer to the board and executive management.
|
|
|
|
Post by theleopard on Jan 25, 2015 15:10:05 GMT
Sadly I missed this poll.
However, I can if I may add my own thoughts which I have already posted elsewhere on the forum:
My own view on all this - in which I seem to be in a minority of one - is that cricket in England is already too top-heavy without adding a t20 franchise competition.
This would surely be played at the big grounds where locals aren't exactly starved of the amount of cricket to watch.
One thing I have read about a franchise t20 competition is that its revenue would be re-invested in the grassroots of cricket.
But then why not instead invest directly "lower" down the chain to stimulate new cricket spectators in areas where currently there is little opportunity to watch the game beyond club level?
I would like to see six "new" first-class clubs developed around the country, in areas where it was felt there was potential for attracting good numbers of spectators.
Some of these could, for example, be developed around the existing MCCUs, such as Oxford and Cambridge.
At the "new"/developed clubs the emphasis would be on nurturing young players. Costs would be kept down by paying much lower salaries to players than at the existing First-Class counties. A lot of the players would be students, such as at the existing MCCUs, who just as now, would combine cricket development with studying for their degree. In addition they would play in a County Championship Division Three where sides would play each other just once. Their main source of revenue would be from participating in the t20 competition, where they would be expected to attract crowd numbers of 3,000-4,000 or so mainly from the local community.
One of the obsessions about franchises is about attracting "quality" players. Of course stars are a big draw in any sphere of entertainment, but there is much more to spectator sport than that. People who want to watch live sport regularly surely want it to be local and accessible, not 100 miles away? People who watch Brighton and Hove Albion do so because it is a local club, not because of "star" players.
If a club like Northamptonshire, which I am sure derives the vast majority of its spectators from the town of Northampton and its close surroundings, can run a professional club, why shouldn't a city such as Cambridge or Oxford?
Obviously this would be a major, long-term investment in the game, not a get-rich-quick scheme. It would require ground developments and other investments. But it would recoup this in the long-term through increased spectator numbers and a wider and better net for talent development (something that a t20 franchise club has zero of).
|
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Jan 26, 2015 11:34:33 GMT
Sadly I missed this poll. However, I can if I may add my own thoughts which I have already posted elsewhere on the forum: My own view on all this - in which I seem to be in a minority of one - is that cricket in England is already too top-heavy without adding a t20 franchise competition. This would surely be played at the big grounds where locals aren't exactly starved of the amount of cricket to watch. One thing I have read about a franchise t20 competition is that its revenue would be re-invested in the grassroots of cricket. But then why not instead invest directly "lower" down the chain to stimulate new cricket spectators in areas where currently there is little opportunity to watch the game beyond club level? I would like to see six "new" first-class clubs developed around the country, in areas where it was felt there was potential for attracting good numbers of spectators. Some of these could, for example, be developed around the existing MCCUs, such as Oxford and Cambridge. At the "new"/developed clubs the emphasis would be on nurturing young players. Costs would be kept down by paying much lower salaries to players than at the existing First-Class counties. A lot of the players would be students, such as at the existing MCCUs, who just as now, would combine cricket development with studying for their degree. In addition they would play in a County Championship Division Three where sides would play each other just once. Their main source of revenue would be from participating in the t20 competition, where they would be expected to attract crowd numbers of 3,000-4,000 or so mainly from the local community. One of the obsessions about franchises is about attracting "quality" players. Of course stars are a big draw in any sphere of entertainment, but there is much more to spectator sport than that. People who want to watch live sport regularly surely want it to be local and accessible, not 100 miles away? People who watch Brighton and Hove Albion do so because it is a local club, not because of "star" players. If a club like Northamptonshire, which I am sure derives the vast majority of its spectators from the town of Northampton and its close surroundings, can run a professional club, why shouldn't a city such as Cambridge or Oxford? Obviously this would be a major, long-term investment in the game, not a get-rich-quick scheme. It would require ground developments and other investments. But it would recoup this in the long-term through increased spectator numbers and a wider and better net for talent development (something that a t20 franchise club has zero of). Interesting ideas,the leopard,though I think they're a world away both from what Graves is aiming at with his review,and also from the ideas of the marketmakers, the media and events promoters who see a possibility in making significant sums from the Friday night fever/Big Bash type of spectacle. Yours is much more an option for retaining some of the traditional attributes of the evolved county game: the local focus, emphasis on developing talent rather than attaining instant stardom. I think something like your proposal is how county clubs will end up in a few years time, though rather than new ones developing, this will probably be the way that Northants and Glamorgan and Kent,and maybe even Sussex will keep alive, by accepting that their are some things that they do very well and others that they are not going to be so good at,and vacating the stage for those who are. I don't think there is a strong argument there for ground development, certainly not to attract speculative investors. It is arguable that environmentally and communitarianly sensitive county councils - if they can ever win the battle with central government over spending - could present a case for community involvement in health and leisure projects that would benefit the many, perhaps by tying your case to an overall rethinking of the pyramid of league structures. This could lead to something like an English version of Grade cricket,where the best club players could gain wider representation without massive squad and salary costs. But this vision would have to sit alongside the megabucks game,whose wider celebrity and media exposure,would offer chances for the very best of local players to make international careers, and to create a climate of interest for the local game. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2015 19:28:16 GMT
Well you asked for it , so here is Borderman's Blueprint.
1. A rugby union style pyramid with the LVCC split into three divisions of seven sides, with the bottom four counties competing in a third tier alongside the three leading minor counties.
Premier League: Yorks/Warwicks/Sussex/Notts/Durham/Somerset/Middx
First Division: Lancs/Northants/Hants/Worcs/Essex/Derbys/Surrey
Second Division: Kent/Glos/Glam/Leics/top three minor counties (or Scotland and Ireland?)
2. Ten team city based T20 Big Bash franchise,split into two groups plus semis and final, played over three/four weeks in July.
3. County T20, played on Sundays like the old JPL, played from May to Sept.
4. Royal London Cup replaced by a Gillette Cup style instant knock-out 50 over comp.
|
|
|
|
Post by theleopard on Jan 27, 2015 11:32:58 GMT
Well you asked for it , so here is Borderman's Blueprint. 1. A rugby union style pyramid with the LVCC split into three divisions of seven sides, with the bottom four counties competing in a third tier alongside the three leading minor counties. Premier League: Yorks/Warwicks/Sussex/Notts/Durham/Somerset/Middx First Division: Lancs/Northants/Hants/Worcs/Essex/Derbys/Surrey Second Division: Kent/Glos/Glam/Leics/top three minor counties (or Scotland and Ireland?) I like the idea of expanding the Championship, basically see my post above for details. But therefore with your idea of 21 clubs I think the three need to be chosen very carefully, not just the "leading" minor counties, who all at the moment are hopelessly ill-equipped to manage this. As I posted above, it needs to be clubs with the potential to grow and attract an audience, also located in an area where there is lack of (professional), but strong interest in cricket and with a deliverable plan to develop or new-build a ground with good spectator facilities (Durham was the original blueprint for this, as they fitted that bill perfectly), to be run with a strong emphasis on young player development. |
|
